Central of Georgia Ry. Co. v. Mosely
| Decision Date | 01 March 1901 |
| Citation | 38 S.E. 350,112 Ga. 914 |
| Parties | CENTRAL OF GEORGIA RY. CO. v. MOSELY. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
1. In charging a jury with respect to the 6 per cent. and 7 per cent. Columns in an annuity table, the judge should direct them to use the latter; and, in giving instructions with regard to using the mortality and annuity tables, he should call their attention to the decreased capacity to earn money which will result from increasing age and the infirmity incident thereto.
2. An amendment to a petition which merely amplifies and explains more fully the original cause of action is allowable.
3. In the trial of an action for a personal injury, it is competent for the defendant to prove that shortly after the injury was inflicted the plaintiff admitted "that the injury was caused by his own fault, and that nobody was in fault but himself."
4. An employé who has the choice of two ways of doing a given piece of work, the one safe and the other dangerous, is under a duty to his employer to select the former; and if instead of so doing he selects the latter, when he knows or ought to know of the danger, he cannot recover of the employer for injuries thus sustained, although his conduct in selecting the dangerous way may not have amounted to actual rashness.
5. The foregoing notes cover all of the material questions of law properly presented by the motion for a new trial which will probably arise at the next hearing of this case.
Error from city court of Macon; W. D. Nottingham, Judge.
Action by S. R. Mosely against the Central of Georgia Railway Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error. Reversed.
R. C Jordan, Hall & Wimberly, and J. E. Hall, for plaintiff in error.
John R Cooper and Steed & Ryals, for defendant in error.
Mosely brought suit in the city court of Macon against the Central of Georgia Railway Company for damages on account of personal injuries alleged to have been sustained through the negligence of the defendant's servants. The petition alleged that the plaintiff, who was an employé of the defendant, engaged in switching and coupling freight cars in its yards, was directed by another employé, to whose orders he was subject, to couple a moving freight car, which had been "kicked" upon a side track, to a stationary car; that, in obedience to these directions, he went behind the slowly-moving car for the purpose of preparing the coupling pin and getting it in readiness to make the coupling, and while so engaged in the performance of his duty a switching train and engine ran backwards and struck the moving car behind which he was preparing the coupling, knocking him down and inflicting injuries set forth in the petition. Negligence is alleged in the failure of the company to give the plaintiff warning, through its servants, of the approach of the switching train to the car behind which he was working, and in failing to equip the engine attached to the switching train with proper brakes, so that it could be stopped before petitioner received serious injuries. By an amendment, which was allowed over the objection of counsel for the defendant, the plaintiff alleged that the switching train which caused him to be injured was at the time run at an unlawful rate of speed, and that the defendant was negligent in allowing this train to be so run. The defendant in its answer denied all allegations of negligence on its part, and averred that the injury to plaintiff was the result of one of the ordinary risks incident to his employment, and that he was not himself free from fault. The issue thus formed was tried by a jury, who returned a verdict for the plaintiff for $3,000. The defendant made a motion for a new trial, which was overruled, and it excepted.
1. The court, in instructing the jury as to the use of the mortality and annuity tables, charged as follows: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial